You are on page 1of 20

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2014 REMEDIAL LAW BAR

EXAM

No, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their


conviction in case Ludong accepts his conviction for
homicide.

I.
Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder.
After trial, the court announced that the case was
considered submitted for decision. Subsequently, the Clerk
of Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment
which were duly received. On promulgation day, Ludong
and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of Balatong and
Labong appeared but without their clients and failed to
satisfactorily explain their absence when queried by the
court. Thus, the judge ordered the Clerk of Court to
proceed with the reading of the judgment convicting all
the accused. With respect to Balatong and Labong, the
judge ordered that the judgment be entered in the
criminal docket and copies be furnished their lawyers. The
lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within the
reglementary period a Joint Motion for Reconsideration.
The court favorably granted the motion of Ludong
downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide but
denied the motion as regards Balatong and Labong. (4%)
(A) Was the court correct in taking cognizance of the Joint
Motion for Reconsideration?
(B) Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in
case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide?
ANSWERS:
(A)
No, the court was not correct in taking cognizance
of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration insofar as Balatong
and Labong were concerned.
Under Section 6 Rule 120, if the judgment was for
conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available under the Rules of Court and the court shall
order his arrest. The accused may regain the remedies
only if he surrenders and files a motion for leave to avail of
the remedies under the Rules of Court.
Here the failure of Balatong and Labong to appear was
without justifiable cause as even their lawyers were not
aware of the reason for their absence. Hence they lost
their remedies under the Rules. Since Balatong and
Labong did not surrender and file a motion for leave to
avail of remedies, it was incorrect for the trial court to take
cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration insofar
as Balatong and Labong were concerned. The trial court
should instead have ordered their arrest. (People v. De
Grano, 5 June 2009, Peralta, J.).
On the other hand, it was correct for the trial court to take
cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration insofar
as Ludong was concerned since he and his lawyer were
present during the promulgation.
(B)

Since Balatong and Labong failed to appear during


the promulgation of the conviction without justifiable
cause, they lost the remedies under the Rules of Court
including the remedy of an appeal.
II.
McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into
brushes with the law. In one incident, he drove his
Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its driver
and passengers in different directions. The pedicab driver
died, while two (2) of the passengers suffered slight
physical injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed
against McJolly. One, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property, and two, for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. The latter
case was scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which
occasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty. He was
meted out the penalty of public censure. A month later,
the case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
was also set for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly
interposed the defense of double jeopardy. Resolve. (4%)
ANSWER:
The defense of double jeopardy is meritorious and
the second information for reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide should be quashed on the ground of double
jeopardy.
The Supreme Court has held that reckless
imprudence is a single crime and that its consequences on
persons and property are material only to determine the
penalty.
Here there was only one act and crime of reckless
imprudence. The death, the physical injuries, and the
damage to the tricycle are only consequences of the same
reckless act of McJolly. Hence there was double jeopardy
when a second information arising from the same reckless
act was brought against the accused. (Ivler v. ModestoSan Pedro, 17 November 2010).
III.
While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their
barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard
screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself behind
the bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he
recognized as his neighbor, Kulasa. When Kulasa was
already in agony, the man stabbed her and she fell on the
ground. The man hurriedly left thereafter.
PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasas rescue.
Kulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria, kept
mentioning to PO2 Asintado Si Rene, gusto akong
patayin! Sinaksak niya ako! When PO2 Asintado was
about to carry her, Kulasa refused and said Kaya ko.
Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene.
The following day, Rene learned of Kulasas death and,
bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities

with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over


media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press
which goes:
I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of
innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may
take ones life away, I hope and pray that justice will be
served the right way. God bless us all.
(Sgd.)
Rene
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of
PO2 Asintados testimony, Kulasas statements, and
Renes statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the
following errors:
1. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 Asintados
testimony, as the latter did not have any personal
knowledge of the facts in issue, and violated Renes right
to due process when it considered Kulasas statements
despite lack of opportunity for her cross-examination.
2. The trial court erred in holding that Renes statement to
the press was a confession which, standing alone, would
be sufficient to warrant conviction.

(1909), the Supreme Court upheld dying declarations as


an exception to the confrontation clause since such
declarations have always been regarded as an exception
to the general rule regarding hearsay evidence.
2.
The argument that the trial court erred in holding
that Renes statement to the press was a confession
which, standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant
conviction is meritorious.
Firstly, Renes statement is not a confession but
an admission. A confession is one wherein a person
acknowledges his guilt of a crime, which Rene did not do.
Secondly, even assuming it is a confession, standing alone
it would not be sufficient to warrant conviction since it is
an extrajudicial confession which is not sufficient ground
for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti. (S3 R133).
Nonetheless this was a harmless error since the
admission of Rene was corroborated by the testimony of
PO2 Asintado on Kulasas statement.
IV.

Resolve. (4%)

An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating of


an order, judgment or document filing be entered or
recorded in a judgment is: (1%)

ANSWER:

(A) pro hac vice

Renes appeal is denied for lack of merit.

(B) non pro tunc

1.

(C) confession relicta verificatione

The contention that the trial court erred in giving


weight to PO2 Asintados testimony since he did not have
personal knowledge of the facts in issue is without merit.
The contention in effect challenges Kulasas statement for
being hearsay.

(D) nolle prosequi

Under the Rules of Evidence, a statement made


immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence is
excepted from the hearsay rule as part of the res gestae.

V.

Here Kulasas statement was made immediately


subsequent to a starling occurrence, that is, her stabbing
by Rene, and was made in a state of hysteria, showing
that she was under the influence of the startling
occurrence. Hence testimony regarding the statement is
excepted from the hearsay rule.
Since Kulasas statement is an exception to the
hearsay rule, Rene cannot complain that his right to due
process was violated when the trial court considered
Kulasas statement despite lack of opportunity to crossexamine her.

ANSWER:
(B) (Note: Should be nunc pro tunc.).

Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease


contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City, over a
residential house in Las Pias City. The lease contract
provided, among others, for a monthly rental of
P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of
non-payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord
migrated to the United States of America (USA) but
granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of
attorney to manage the property and file and defend suits
over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to
pay the rentals due for five (5) months. Maria asks your
legal advice on how she can expeditiously collect from
Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. (6%)
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?

There should be no serious question about the


admissibility against an accused of hearsay where this
hearsay falls under an exception to the hearsay rule,
especially here where the declarant is dead and thus
unavailable to testify. (ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA, BASIC
EVIDENCE 214-215 [2004 ed.]). In U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530

(B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy


which you recommended?

(C) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against


Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-year period within
which to file the action?
ANSWERS:
(A)
The judicial remedy that I would recommend to
Maria is to file a collection suit for the P125,000 rentals in
arrears and the P12,500 interest due. The remedy would
be expeditious since it would be governed by the Rules on
Summary Procedure as the amount of the demand,
excluding interest, does not exceed P200,000.
(B)
The proper venue of the collection suit would be in
Marikina City, where Tenant resides.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, venue in
personal actions is with the residence of either the plaintiff
or the defendant, at the plaintiffs election.
Since the Plaintiff does not reside in the
Philippines, venue may be laid only in Marikina City where
the defendant Tenant resides.

against Co Batong; that Co Batongs business address is in


Makati City; and that the libelous article was first printed
and published in Paraaque City. The complaint prayed
that Jose Penduko be held liable to pay P200,000.00, as
moral damages; P150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
P50,000.00, as attorneys fees.
Jose Penduko filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following
grounds:
1. The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the
Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount of
P350,000.00 fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paraaque City.
2. The venue is improperly laid because what the
complaint alleged is Co Batongs business address and not
his residence address.
Are the grounds invoked in the Motion to Dismiss proper?
(4%)
ANSWER:
No, the grounds invoked in the motion to dismiss
improper.
1.

(C)
If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against
Tenant, the one-year period within which to file the action
shall be reckoned from the expiration of 5-days from
notice of the last demand to pay and vacate. (Cruz v.
Atencio, 28 February 1959; Sy Oh v. Garcia, 30 June 1969).
VI.
As a rule, courts may not grant an application for
provisional
remedy
without
complying
with
the
requirements of notice and hearing. These requirements,
however, may be dispensed with in an application for:
(1%)
(A) writ of preliminary injunction

The invocation of the Totality Rule is misplaced.


Under Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, jurisdiction over
a civil action for damages in case of libel is with the Court
of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Court. (Nocum v.
Tan, 23 September 2005). The said provision does not
mention any jurisdictional amount over such action; hence
the Totality Rule is inapplicable.
2.
The ground that the complaint mentioned the
complainants office address rather than his residence is
of no moment since the complaint also stated that the
libelous article was printed and first published in
Paranaque City. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal
Code, venue in a civil action for libel also lies in the place
where the libelous article was printed and first published.

(B) writ for preliminary attachment


VIII.
(C) an order granting support pendente lite
(D) a writ of replevin
ANSWER:
B)
VII.
Co Batong, a Taipan, filed a civil action for damages with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City against
Jose Penduko, a news reporter of the Philippine Times, a
newspaper of general circulation printed and published in
Paraaque City. The complaint alleged, among others, that
Jose Penduko wrote malicious and defamatory imputations

Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of


America (USA) but formerly a Filipino citizen, executed a
notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State of
California, USA. Johnny, at the time of his death, was
survived by his niece Anastacia, an American citizen
residing at the condominium unit of Johnny located at Fort
Bonifacio, Taguig City; a younger brother, Bartolome, who
manages Johnnys fish pond in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and
a younger sister, Christina, who manages Johnnys rental
condominium units in Makati City. Johnnys entire estate
which he inherited from his parents is valued at P200
million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as executrix of his
will. (4%)

(A) Can Johnnys notarial will be probated before the


proper court in the Philippines?
(B) Is Anastacia qualified to be the executrix of Johnnys
notarial will?
ANSWERS:

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a writ of attachment


may issue even before service of summons upon the
defendant. (S2 R57).
(B)
No, the writ of preliminary attachment not properly
executed.

(A)
Yes, the formal validity of a will is governed also by the
national law of the decedent. (Article 817, Civil Code).
A will proved and allowed in a foreign country, according
to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and
recorded by the proper Regional Trial Court in the
Philippines. (S1 R77).
(B)
Yes, assuming that Anastacia is of legal age, she is
qualified to be an executor although an alien because she
is a resident of the Philippines. (S1 R78).

Under S5 R57, no levy on preliminary attachment shall be


enforced unless there is prior or simultaneous service of
the summons and the accompanying papers. (S5 R The
Supreme Court has held that subsequent service of
summons will not cure the irregularity that attended the
enforcement of the writ (Onate v. Abrogar, 23 February
1995).
Here the sheriff levied upon the house and lot prior to the
service of the summons and the complaint upon Agente.
Hence the writ of preliminary attachment was not properly
executed. The subsequent service of summons and the
complaint did not cure the irregularity in the enforcement
of the writ.
X.

IX.
Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in favor
of Agente, a special power of attorney to sell his house
and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but failed to
remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon. On his
return to the Philippines, Bayani, by way of a demand
letter duly received by Agente, sought to recover the
amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount as he
had used it for the construction of his own house.
Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for sum of
money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an exparte motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment duly supported by an affidavit. The court
granted the ex-parte motion and issued a writ of
preliminary attachment upon Bayanis posting of the
required bond. Bayani prayed that the courts sheriff be
deputized to serve and implement the writ of attachment.
On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff served upon Agente
the writ of attachment and levied on the latters house
and lot. On November 20, 2013, the Sheriff served on
Agente summons and a copy of the complaint. On
November 22, 2013, Agente filed an Answer with Motion
to Discharge the Writ of Attachment alleging that at the
time the writ of preliminary attachment was issued, he has
not been served with summons and, therefore, it was
improperly issued. (4%)

Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong


over a commercial building where the former conducted
his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated,
among others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four
(4)-year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On
January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was
appointed administrator of the estate of Prince Chong, but
the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of
January to June 2013 despite King Kongs written
demands.
Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of contract with
damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30,
2013. (4%)
(A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction since the
amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
(B) If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince
Chong, and King Kong also filed the complaint for sum of
money during that time, will the action be dismissible
upon Prince Chongs death during the pendency of the
case?
ANSWERS:

(A) Is Agente correct?


(A)
(B) Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly
executed?
ANSWERS:
(A)
No, Agente is not correct.

No, Kin II Chong cannot move to dismiss the


complaint on the ground that the RTC is without
jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.
Under B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction
over
actions
incapable
of
pecuniary
estimation.
Here the action is for rescission which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. The P300,000 accrued rentals is

only incidental to the main purpose of the action which is


to rescind the lease contract.
(B)
No, the action will not be dismissible upon Prince
Chongs death during the pendency of the case.
Under S20 R3, when the action is on a contractual money
claim and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgment, the action shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment.
Here the action is on a contractual money claim, that is, a
claim for rentals based on a lease contract. Hence it shall
be allowed to continue until final judgment. (S20 R3, S5
R86).
XI.
A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for
unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious
gun for hire. When the police served the warrant, they also
sought the assistance of barangay tanods who were
assigned to look at other portions of the premises around
the house. In a nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the
house of Ass-asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of
marijuana that was wrapped in newsprint. He took it and
this was later used by the authorities to charge Ass-asin
with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-asin objected to
the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was
illegally seized. Is the objection of Assasin valid? (4%)
ANSWER:
Yes, the objection of Ass-asin is valid.
Under the Constitution, the right of the people
against unlawful search is inviolable except in cases where
a valid search warrant was issued or in exceptional cases
where the law provides for a warrantless search. (Sec. 2,
Art. III, Constitution). Under the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine, items seized by virtue of an unlawful search are
inadmissible in evidence. (Sec. 3[2], Art. III, Constitution).

Here the the seizure of the marijuana was illegal


since it was not pursuant to a search warrant. The search
warrant was for the search and seizure of unlicensed
firearms not marijuana.
Nor would the exception
regarding items seized under plain view apply. The
marijuana was wrapped in newsprint and clearly not in
plain sight. Hence the marijuana may not be introduced in
evidence over Ass-asins objection.
XII.
Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment agency
where they both applied for overseas employment. They
exchanged pleasantries, including details of their personal
circumstances. Fortunately, Mary Jane was deployed to
work as front desk receptionist at a hotel in Abu Dhabi
where she met Sultan Ahmed who proposed marriage, to
which she readily accepted. Unfortunately for Shiela May,
she was not deployed to work abroad, and this made her
envious of Mary Jane.

Mary Jane returned to the Philippines to prepare for her


wedding. She secured from the National Statistics Office
(NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage. It turned out from the
NSO records that Mary Jane had previously contracted
marriage with John Starr, a British citizen, which she never
did. The purported marriage between Mary Jane and John
Starr contained all the required pertinent details on Mary
Jane. Mary Jane later on learned that Shiela May is the
best friend of John Starr.
As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her
predicament. What legal remedy will you avail to enable
Mary Jane to contract marriage with Sultan Ahmed? (4%)
ANSWER:
The legal remedy I would avail to enable Mary
Jane to contract marriage with Sultan Ahmed is to file a
petition under Rule 108 to cancel entries in the marriage
contract between John Starr and Mary Jane, particularly
the portion and entries thereon relating to the wife.
Rule 108 may be availed of to cancel erroneous or
invalid entries in the Civil Registry. Here the entry of Mary
Jane as the wife of John Starr is clearly erroneous and
invalid as she never contracted marriage with anybody,
much less John Starr. There is no need to file a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage since there was no
marriage to speak of in the first place, the marriage
contract being a sham contract. (Republic v. Olaybar, 10
February 2014, Peralta, J.).
XIII.
A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from
packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door
forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at the
international airport. In one of the routinary inspections of
packages waiting to be sent to the United States of
America (USA), the dog sat beside one of the packages, a
signal that the package contained dangerous drugs.
Thereafter, the guards opened the package and found two
(2) kilograms of cocaine. The owner of the package was
arrested and charges were filed against him. During the
trial, the prosecution, through the trainer who was present
during the incident and an expert in this kind of field,
testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff packages
to determine if the contents were dangerous drugs and
the sniffing technique of these highly trained dogs was
accepted worldwide and had been successful in dangerous
drugs operations. The prosecution moved to admit this
evidence to justify the opening of the package. The
accused objected on the grounds that: (i) the guards had
no personal knowledge of the contents of the package
before it was opened; (ii) the testimony of the trainer of
the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the accused could not crossexamine the dog. Decide. (4%)
ANSWER:
The accuseds objections are overruled.
The objection that the guards had no personal
knowledge of the contents of the package before it was
opened is misplaced. The one testifying is the trainer not
the guards and he had personal knowledge of the
circumstances since he was present during the incident.
Besides there is no rule of evidence that one cannot testify

about the contents of a package if he did not have prior


personal knowledge of its contents before opening it.

Is the motion to quash legally tenable? (4%)


ANSWER:

The objection that the testimony of the trainer of


the dog is hearsay is not valid. Hearsay is an out-of-court
declaration made by a person which is offered for the
truth of the matter asserted.
Here what is involved is a dog who is not a person
who can make an out-of-court declaration. (Lempert &
Saltzburg, A MODERN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE 370-371
[1982]). A dog is not treated as a declarant or witness
who can be cross-examined. (People v. Centolella, 305
N.Y.S.2d 279). Hence testimony that the dog sat beside
the package is not testimony about an out-of-court
declaration and thus not hearsay.
The objection that the accused could not crossexamine the dog is without merit. Under the Constitution,
the accuseds right of confrontation refers to witnesses.
As previously discussed, a dog is not a witness who can be
cross-examined.
Note: It is urged that utmost liberality be
exercised in grading this number. The answer is not found
in Philippine law and jurisprudence and even in
commentaries by writers on evidence.

No, the motion to quash is not legally tenable.


In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held
that the death of the public officer did not mean that the
allegation of conspiracy between the public officer and the
private person can no longer be proved or that their
alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing
extinguished by the death of the public officer was his
criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor
did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy
between him and the private person.
Hence the
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged.
(People v. Go, 25 March 2014, Peralta, J.)
XVI.
Plaintiff filed a complaint denominated as accion
publiciana, against defendant. In his answer, defendant
alleged that he had no interest over the land in question,
except as lessee of Z. Plaintiff subsequently filed an
affidavit of Z, the lessor of defendant, stating that Z had
sold to plaintiff all his rights and interests in the property
as shown by a deed of transfer attached to the affidavit.
Thus, plaintiff may ask the court to render: (1%)

XIV.
(A) summary judgment
When a Municipal Trial Court (MTC), pursuant to its
delegated jurisdiction, renders an adverse judgment in an
application for land registration, the aggrieved partys
remedy is: (1%)
(A) ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court
(B) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court

(B) judgment on the pleadings


(C) partial judgment
(D) judgment by default
ANSWER:

(C) ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals


(D) petition for review to the Court of Appeals
ANSWER:
(C) (See Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. 129)
XV.
The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation, found probable cause to charge
Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a private
individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA)
No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as
amended).
Before the information could be filed with the
Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an ambush.
This, notwithstanding, an information was filed against
Gov. Matigas and Carpintero.
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, filed a
Motion to Quash the Information, on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that with the
death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public officer charged in
the information.

(A) (S1 & 3, R35)


XVII.
A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of
plunder, a non-bailable offense, where the court had
already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being
arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant
and to Fix Bail, arguing that the allegations in the
information did not charge the crime of plunder but a
crime of malversation, a bailable offense. The court denied
the motion on the ground that it had not yet acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the
accused should be under the custody of the court since
the crime charged was nonbailable.
The accuseds lawyer counter-argued that the court can
rule on the motion even if the accused was at-large
because it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case. According to said lawyer, there was no need for the
accused to be under the custody of the court because
what was filed was a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix
Bail, not a Petition for Bail.
(A) If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the
motion? (3%)

(B) If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial


remedy should the accused undertake? (2%)

(B) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of


homicide and the accused filed a Notice of Appeal, is he
entitled to bail?

ANSWERS:
ANSWERS:
(A)
(A)
If I were the Sandiganbayan, I would deny the
Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail.
The motion to quash warrant of arrest may be
considered since only jurisdiction over the person not
custody of the law is required. Jurisdiction over the person
of A was obtained by his voluntary appearance made
through the filing of the motion seeking affirmative relief.
(See Miranda v. Tuliao, 31 March 2006).
Nonetheless I would still deny the motion to quash
arrest warrant. The ground that the offense charged is
malversation not plunder is not a valid ground to quash
the arrest warrant. A should simply file an application for
bail and contend that he is entitled thereto as a matter of
right.
The motion to fix amount of bail, which is in effect
an application for bail cannot be granted unless the
accused is in custody of the law. (Miranda v. Tuliao, 31
March 2006). Here A was not in custody of the law but still
at large. Hence the motion to fix the amount of bail
should be denied.
(B)
If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, the
judicial remedy that the accused should undertake is to
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
Supreme Court. Certiorari is available to challenge
interlocutory orders rendered with grave abuse of
discretion since appeal is unavailable.
Here the order denying the Motion to Quash Arrest
Warrant and to Fix Bail is interlocutory since it does not
completely dispose of the case. Hence certiorari is
available. A should aver that the Sandiganbayan acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or
excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion.

If I were the judge, I will grant the Petition for Bail


if the evidence does not show any qualifying aggravating
circumstance. In such a case the offense would be only
homicide which is bailable.
(i) The ground that the court had already ruled that the
evidence of guilt is strong is improper. An order denying
an application for bail is interlocutory and remains at the
control of the court until final judgment. Hence the court
is not bound by its earlier ruling and may reconsider the
same if the evidence or law warrants the same.
(ii) The ground that the resolution for the Petition for Bail
is solely based on the evidence presented by the
prosecution is improper. While S8 R114 provides that the
prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the
evidence of guilt is strong, it should not be taken to mean
that the resolution of the bail application is based solely
on the prosecution evidence. At the hearing for the bail
application, both the prosecution and the accused must be
given reasonable opportunity to prove or to disprove,
respectively, that the evidence of guilt is strong. (Santos
v. Ofilada, 245 SCRA 56).
(iii) The ground that no motion for reconsideration was
filed from the order denying the petition for bail is
improper. As previously discussed, an order denying bail
is merely interlocutory. Hence the failure to move for
reconsideration thereof during the trial will not render the
order final and conclusive.
(B)
No, after conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. (S5
R114).
XIX.

XVIII.
A was charged with murder in the lower court. His Petition
for Bail was denied after a summary hearing on the
ground that the prosecution had established a strong
evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was filed
from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the
reception of the evidence of the accused, the accused
reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the
witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown that
no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the
killing. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it
had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is strong;
(ii) the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on
the evidence presented by the prosecution; and (iii) no
Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the
Petition for Bail. (6%)
(A) If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the incident?

A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the


hearsay rule. It, however, does not cover: (1%)
(A) admission by a conspirator
(B) admission by a privy
(C) judicial admission
(D) adoptive admission
(C) Note: a vicarious admission is an extrajudicial
admission. Hence C is not covered by the rule regarding
vicarious admissions.
XX.

Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a


Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with Debi
Wallis on the ground of psychological incapacity of the
latter. Before filing the petition, Tom Wallis had told Debi
Wallis that he wanted the annulment of their marriage
because he was already fed up with her irrational and
eccentric behaviour. However, in the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage, the correct residential
address of Debi Wallis was deliberately not alleged and
instead, the residential address of their married son was
stated. Summons was served by substituted service at the
address stated in the petition. For failure to file an answer,
Debi Wallis was declared in default and Tom Wallis
presented evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered judgment
declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3) years
after the RTC judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got hold
of a copy thereof and wanted to have the RTC judgment
reversed and set aside.
If you are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial remedy
or remedies will you take? Discuss and specify the ground
or grounds for said remedy or remedies. (5%)
ANSWER:
If I were the lawyer of Debi Wallis, the judicial remedy I
would take is to file with the Court of Appeals an action for
annulment of the RTC judgment under Rule 47. An action
for annulment of judgment may be resorted to since the
remedies of appeal and petition for relief are no longer
available through no fault of Debi Wallis. (S1 R47).
The ground for annulment of judgment would be
lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction also covers lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant since the
judgment would be void. (1 FLORENZ D. REGALADO,
REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 558 [7th rev. ed., 3rd
printing]).
Here the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
person of Debi since there was no valid substituted service
of summons. Substituted service of summons should have
been made at Debis residence. (S7 R14). Hence the
judgment of the RTC was void. Since the judgment is void,
the petition for annulment thereof is imprescriptible. (S3
R47).
Furthermore, default judgments are not allowed in
declaration of nullity of marriage. (S3[e] R9). Hence the
trial courts rendition of a default judgment was made with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.
XXI.
Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al Pakino,
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for
specific performance against Robert White. Instead of
filing an answer to the complaint, Robert White filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
the appropriate board resolution from the Board of
Directors of Goodfeather Corporation to show the
authority of Al Pakino to represent the corporation
and file the complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the
motion to dismiss and, accordingly, it ordered the
dismissal of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion for
reconsideration which the RTC denied. As nothing more

could be done by Al Pakino before the RTC, he filed an


appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Robert White
moved for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the
same involved purely a question of law and should have
been filed with the Supreme Court (SC). However, Al
Pakino claimed that the appeal involved mixed questions
of fact and law because there must be a factual
determination if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly authorized by
Goodfeather Corporation to file the complaint. Whose
position is correct? Explain. (4%)
ANSWER:
Robert Whites position is correct. In a case
involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the
issue of whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing
the complaint on the ground that the person who filed the
complaint in behalf of the plaintiff corporation was not
authorized to do so is a legal issue, reviewable only by the
Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45. (Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, 26 November
2004).
(Note: An alternative answer would be that the
appeal raises a factual question of whether or not Al
Pakino was indeed authorized to file the complaint in
behalf of Goodfeather Corporation.
A reading of
Tamondong would show that the appellant only raised a
legal question of whether it was proper to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a cause of action but did not
raise a factual issue as to whether the filer was in fact
authorized by the corporation.).
XXII.
Which of the following decisions may be appealed directly
to the Supreme Court (SC)? (Assume that the issues to be
raised on appeal involve purely questions of law) (1%)
(A) Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(B) Decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction.
(C) Decision of the Civil Service Commission.
(D) Decision of the Office of the President.
ANSWER:
(B) Note: In an appeal from RTC judgment in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction, the appeal should be to the CA
even if the questions are only legal. Hence A should be
excluded. (S2[c] R42).
XXIII.
Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
complaint against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC, after
due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the
complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages to
Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before the
Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC decision.
Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Humptys motion for
execution pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTCs order

granting execution pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty filed with


the
CA another case, this time a special civil action for
certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a violation of
the rule against forum shopping considering that two (2)
actions emanating from the same case with the RTC were
filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? Explain. (4%)
ANSWER:
No, there is no violation of the rule against forum
shopping.
Forum shopping applies where two or more initiatory
pleadings were filed by the same party. This is discernible
from the use of the phrase commenced any action or
filed any claim in S5 R7.
Here the first case involves the filing by Ms. Dumpty of a
notice of appeal which is not an initiatory pleading. Hence
there is no forum shopping.
XXIV.
Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Solomon
contracted a second marriage with Hope. When Faith
found out about the second marriage of Solomon and
Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011.

MeTC rendered judgment against him, he could always


raise the issue on the jurisdiction of the MeTC. After trial,
the MeTC rendered judgment against Mr. Jachin. What is
the remedy of Mr. Jachin? (1%)
(A) File an appeal
(B) File an action for nullification of judgment
(C) File a motion for reconsideration
(D) File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
ANSWER:
(A) See S8 R40. R47 is not available since appeal is still
available. Not C since a prohibited pleading.
XXVI.
Parole evidence is an: (1%)
(A) agreement not included in the document
(B) oral agreement not included in the document
(C) agreement included in the document
(D) oral agreement included in the document

Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of


nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the
case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing.
Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of
prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in
the criminal case should be suspended because if his first
marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, it will
have the effect of exculpating him from the crime of
bigamy. Decide. (4%)
ANSWER:
Motion to suspend proceedings denied.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a prejudicial
question arises if there has been a previously filed civil
action. Here the civil action was filed after the criminal
action. Hence no prejudicial question will arise.
Moreover the Supreme Court has held that a pending
case for declaration of nullity of marriage does not raise a
prejudicial question to a charge of bigamy since a person
who contracts a second marriage without first awaiting a
judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage has
already committed bigamy. (People v. Odtuhan, 17 July
2013, Peralta, J.).
XXV.
Mr. Boaz filed an action for ejectment against Mr. Jachin
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Mr. Jachin
actively participated in every stage of the proceedings
knowing fully well that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over
the action. In his mind, Mr. Jachin was thinking that if the

ANSWER:
(A)
Note: It is suggested that either A or B be
considered as correct. Strictly speaking parol evidence
does not have to be an agreement; it is simply any
evidence, whether written or oral, which is not contained
in a written agreement subject of a case and which seeks
to modify, alter, or explain the terms of the written
agreement.
XXVII.
Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of sale
and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. Mr.
Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. State
and discuss the appropriate remedy/remedies under each
of the following situations: (6%)
(A) If the RTC grants Ms. Brights motion to dismiss and
dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
action, what will be the remedy/remedies of Mr. Avenger?
(B) If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss, what
will be her remedy/remedies?
(C) If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss and,
further proceedings, including trial on the merits, are
conducted until the RTC renders a decision in favor of Mr.
Avenger, what will be the remedy/remedies of Ms. Bright?
ANSWERS:

(A)
If the RTC grants Ms. Brightss motion to dismiss,
the remedies of Mr. Avenger are:
(a) File a motion for reconsideration under Rule 37.
(b) Re-file the complaint. The dismissal does not bar the
re-filing of the case (S5 R16).

The adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition for


change of name. May A file a petition for change of name?
If the RTC grants the petition for change of name, what, if
any, will be the effect on the respective relations of A with
his adoptive parents and with his natural parents? Discuss.
(4%)
ANSWER:

(c) Appeal from the order of dismissal. The dismissal order


is a final order as it completely disposes of the case;
hence it is appealable.

Yes, A may file a petition for change of name. Changing


name on the ground that it is offensive and seriously
affects the petitioners business and social life is a valid
ground especially where the adoptive parents had given
their consent.

(d) File an amended complaint as a matter of right curing


the defect of lack of cause of action before the dismissal
order becomes final. This is because a motion to dismiss
is not a responsive pleading; hence Mr. Avenger can
amend the complaint as a matter of right. (S2 R10).

The grant of the petition will not change As


relations with his adoptive and natural parents. The
Supreme Court has held that change of name under Rule
103 affects only the name and not the status of the
petitioner. (Republic v. CA, 21 May 1992).

(B)
If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss,
her remedies are:
(a) File a motion for reconsideration.
(b) Proceed to trial and if she loses, appeal and assign the
failure to dismiss as a reversible error.
(c) File a special civil action for certiorari and/or
mandamus if the denial of the order to dismiss is made
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or
excess of jurisdiction.
(C)
If the RTC renders a decision in favor of Mr.
Avenger, Ms. Brights remedies are:
(a) File a motion for reconsideration or new trial under
Rule 37.
(b) File an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41.
(c) File an appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 if
the appeal will raise only questions of law.
(d) File a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38.
(e) File an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47
on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
XXVIII.
A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler.
Later on in life, A filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court, as he wanted to reassume the surname of his
natural parents because the surname of his adoptive
parents sounded offensive and was seriously affecting his
business and social life.

XXIX.
Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land
located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet.
However, when she visited the property after she took a
long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her
childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house
on her property.
Both Estrella and John were residents of the same
barangay. To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint
for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), alleging
that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her
certificate of title and tax declaration which showed the
assessed value of the property as P21,000.00. On the
other hand, John refuted Estrellas claim of ownership and
submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between
him and Estrella. After the filing of Johns answer, the MTC
observed that the real issue was one of ownership and not
of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a
full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was originally
filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on the assessed
value of the property, it was the court of proper
jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment
declaring John as the owner of the land and, hence,
entitled to the possession thereof. (4%)
(A) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not?
(B) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the
assessed value of the property, the case was within its
original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a fullblown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed
with it? Why or why not?
ANSWERS:
(A)
No, the MTC was not correct in dismissing the
case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held
that an allegation of ownership as a defense in the answer

will not oust the MTC of jurisdiction in an ejectment case.


(Subano v. Vallecer, 24 March 1959). What determines
subject-matter jurisdiction is the allegations in the
complaint and not those in the answer. Furthermore, the
MTC is empowered under S16 R70 to resolve the issue of
ownership, albeit for the purpose only of resolving the
issue of possession.
(B)
No the RTC was not correct in ruling that the case
was within its original jurisdiction and that hence it may
conduct a full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it were
originally filed with it.
Under S8 R40, if an appeal is taken from an MTC
order dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction without a
trial on the merits, the RTC on appeal may affirm the
dismissal order and if it has jurisdiction thereover, try the
case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with
it.
Here the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the
case since it is an ejectment suit cognizable exclusively by
the MTC. The assessed value of the land is irrelevant for
the purpose of determining jurisdiction in ejectment suits
and would not oust the MTC of jurisdiction in the same
manner as allegations of ownership would not oust the
MTC of jurisdiction.
The RTC should have reversed the dismissal order
and remanded the case to the MTC for further
proceedings. (S8 R40).
Note: Utmost liberality should be given to the
examinee on this question as it does not appear to be
within the coverage of the remedial law examination per
the bar examination syllabus given by the Supreme
Court.
ANSWERS IN REMEDIAL LAW
I.
Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder.
After trial, the court announced that the case was
considered submitted for decision. Subsequently, the Clerk
of Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment
which were duly received. On promulgation day, Ludong
and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of Balatong and
Labong appeared but without their clients and failed to
satisfactorily explain their absence when queried by the
court. Thus, the judge ordered the Clerk of Court to
proceed with the reading of the judgment convicting all
the accused. With respect to Balatong and Labong, the
judge ordered that the judgment be entered in the
criminal docket and copies be furnished their lawyers. The
lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within the
reglementary period a Joint Motion for Reconsideration.
The court favorably granted the motion of Ludong
downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide but
denied the motion as regards Balatong and Labong. (4%)
(A) Was the court correct in taking cognizance of the Joint
Motion for Reconsideration?

No, the court was not correct in taking


cognizance of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, if
the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the
accused to appear was without justifiable cause,
the accused shall lose the available remedies.
However, the accused may surrender within 15 days
from promulgation of the judgment and file a
motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies.
Here, Balatong and Labong neither
appeared during the promulgation of their
judgment, presented a justifiable cause nor
surrender within the 15-day period, losing all the
available remedies provided in the Rules. Hence,
the court has exceeded its jurisdiction when it
allowed the Joint Motion for Reconsideration.
(B) Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in
case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide?
No, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal
their conviction in case Ludong accepts his
conviction.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
when an accused fails to appear during the
promulgation of the judgment of conviction without
justifiable cause, he loses all available remedies in
the Rules including the remedy of appeal.
Hence, Balatong and Labong are not
allowed by the Rules to appeal their conviction.
II.
McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into
brushes with the law. In one incident, he drove his
Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its river
and passengers in different directions. The pedicab driver
died, while two (2) of the passengers suffered slight
physical injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed
against McJolly. One, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property, and two, for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. The latter
case was scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which
occasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty. He was
meted out the penalty of public censure. A month later,
the case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
was also set for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly
interposed the defense of double jeopardy. Resolve. (4%)
McJolly may not quash the information on
the ground of double jeopardy.
Settled is the doctrine that prior conviction
or acquittal of reckless imprudence bars the
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense
regardless of its various resulting acts; otherwise,
prosecution of the second quasi-offense would

place the accused in double jeopardy. In such a


case, the accused may move to quash the
information for the second quasi-offense.
Hence, McJolly may move to quash the
information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide on the ground of double jeopardy.
III.
While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their
barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard
screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself behind
the bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he
recognized as his neighbor, Kulasa. When Kulasa was
already in agony, the man stabbed her and she fell on the
ground. The man hurriedly left thereafter.
PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasas rescue.
Kulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria, kept
mentioning to PO2 Asintado Si Rene, gusto akong
patayin! Sinaksak niya ako! When PO2 Asintado was
about to carry her, Kulasa refused and said Kaya ko.
Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene.
The following day, Rene learned of Kulasas death and,
bothered by his
conscience, surrendered to the
authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was
broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to release his
statement to the press which goes:
I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of
innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may
take ones life away, I hope and pray that justice will be
served the right way. God bless us all. (Sgd.) Rene
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of
PO2 Asintados testimony, Kulasas statements, and
Renes statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the
following errors:
1. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 Asintados
testimony, as the latter did not have any personal
knowledge of the facts in issue, and violated Renes right
to due process when it considered Kulasas statements
despite lack of opportunity for her cross-examination.
2. The trial court erred in holding that Renes statement to
the press was a confession which, standing alone, would
be sufficient to warrant conviction. Resolve. (4%)
Renes contentions have no legs to stand
on.
Under the Rules of Evidence, testimonies
based on personal knowledge and part of res
gestae are given probative value to convict the
accused. Personal knowledge pertains to a witness
testimony derived from is own perception of the

criminal acts, while part of res gestae whish is an


exception to the hearsay rule pertains to a
statement made by a victim before, during or
immediately after the commission of a crime by the
accused. On the other hand, confessions to be
taken as mitigating circumstance must be made
with the acknowledgment of the confessants guilt.
Here, PO2 Asintados testimonies were
based on personal knowledge as well as a part of
res gestae, hence sufficient to convict Rene. On the
other hand, the press release cannot be considered
as a confession absent Renes acknowledgment of
guilt. Hence, Renes contentions should be denied.
IV.
An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating of
an order, judgment or document filing be entered or
recorded in a judgment is: (1%)
(A) pro hac vice
(B) non pro tunc
(C) confession relicta verificatione
(D) nolle prosequi
B
V.
Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease
contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City, over a
residential house in Las Pias City. The lease contract
provided, among others, for a monthly rental of
P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of
non-payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord
migrated to the United States of America (USA) but
granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of
attorney to manage the property and file and defend suits
over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to
pay the rentals due for five (5) months.
Maria asks your legal advice on how she can
expeditiously collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus
interests due. (6%)
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to
Maria?
Pursuant to the Rules on Civil Procedure,
I would recommend to Maria to send the Tenant a
demand for the payment of the rentals plus
interests, then file for an Unlawful Detainer five
days from the Tenants receipt of the demand and
failure to make a payment.

(B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy


which you recommended?
Applying the Rules of Ejectment to this
case, the complaint for Unlawful Detainer shall be
filed before the Municipal Trail Court (MTC) where
the real property involved is situated, hence in Las
Pinas City.
(C) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against
Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-year period within
which to file the action?
Under Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the one-year period is reckoned from
the date of demand and failure to make a payment.
VI.
As a rule, courts may not grant an application for
provisional
remedy
without
complying
with
the
requirements of notice and hearing. These requirements,
however, may be dispensed with in an application for:
(1%)
(A) writ of preliminary injunction
(B) writ for preliminary attachment
(C) an order granting support pendente lite
(D) a writ of replevin
D
VII.
Co Batong, a Taipan, filed a civil action for damages with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City against
Jose Penduko, a news reporter of the Philippine Times, a
newspaper of general circulation printed and published in
Paraaque City. The complaint alleged, among others, that
Jose Penduko wrote malicious and defamatory imputations
against Co Batong; that Co Batongs business address is in
Makati City; and that the libelous article was first printed
and published in Paraaque City. The complaint prayed
that Jose Penduko be held liable to pay P200,000.00, as
moral damages; P150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
P50,000.00, as attorneys fees.
Jose Penduko filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following
grounds:
1. The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the
Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount of
P350,000.00 fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paraaque City.

2. The venue is improperly laid because what the


complaint alleged is Co Batongs business address and not
his residence address.
Are the grounds invoked in the Motion to Dismiss proper?
(4%)
No, the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and
improper venue invoked in the Motion to Dismiss
are not proper.
Settled is the rule that in cases where the
claim for damages is the main action, the claim
comprises
all
kinds
of
damages,
including
attorneys fees. On the other hand, the venue for
the complaint for damages arising from Libel is the
RTC of the province where the libelous material was
published.
Here, the total jurisdictional amount of
claim for damages including attorneys fees falls
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, and the libelous
material was published in Paranaque City. Hence,
the case was properly filed in the RTC of Paranaque
City.
VIII.
Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of
America (USA) but formerly a Filipino citizen, executed a
notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State of
California, USA. Johnny, at the time of his death, was
survived by his niece Anastacia, an American citizen
residing at the condominium unit of Johnny located at Fort
Bonifacio, Taguig City; a younger brother, Bartolome, who
manages Johnnys fish pond in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and
a younger sister, Christina, who manages Johnnys rental
condominium units in Makati City. Johnnys entire estate
which he inherited from his parents is valued at P200
million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as executrix of his
will. (4%)
(A) Can Johnnys notarial will be probated before the
proper court in the Philippines?
Yes, Johnnys notarial will can be
probated before the proper court in the Philippines.
Under the Ruled of Special Proceedings, a
will of a non-resident alien who left an estate in the
Philippines may be probated before the RTC of the
province or city where the estate is located.
Here, the testator Johnny was a nonresident alien who left some estates in the Taguig
City, Makati City, and Pangasinan. Hence, his will
can be probated before the RTC of any of these
cities and province in the Philippines.

(B) Is Anastacia qualified to be the executrix of Johnnys


notarial will?
Yes, Anastacia is qualified to be the
executrix of Johnnys notarial will.
Under the Rules of Special Proceedings,
any executor named in a will and who is not
incompetentminor, non-resident, or unfit to
execute the trustis qualified to serve as executor
or executrix.
Here, Anastaciais the person named in
the will; she is not incompetent to serve. Hence,
Anastacia is qualifieid to be the executrix of
Johnnys will.
IX.
Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in
favor of Agente, a special power of attorney to sell his
house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but
failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon. On
his return to the Philippines, Bayani, by way of a demand
letter duly received by Agente, sought to recover the
amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount as he
had used it for the construction of his own house. Thus,
Bayani filed an action against Agente for sum of money
with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an ex-parte
motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment duly supported by an affidavit. The court
granted the ex-parte motion and issued a writ of
preliminary attachment upon Bayanis posting of the
required bond. Bayani prayed that the courts sheriff
be deputized to serve and implement the writ of
attachment. On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff served
upon Agente the writ of attachment and levied on the
latters house and lot. On November 20, 2013, the Sheriff
served on Agente summons and a copy of the complaint.
On November 22, 2013, Agente filed an Answer with
Motion to Discharge the Writ of Attachment alleging that
at the time the writ of preliminary attachment was issued,
he has not been served with summons and, therefore, it
was improperly issued. (4%)
(A) Is Agente correct?
Yes, Agente is correct in moving for the
discharge of the writ of attachment.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
party whose property has been ordered attached
may file a motion to discharge the attachment on
the ground that the writ was improperly enforced,
such as when the rule on prior or contemporaneous
service of summons was not observed.
Here, the writ of attachment was enforced
prior to instead of subsequent or contemporaneous
with the service of summons upon the defendant

Agente. Hence, the writ of attachment should be


discharged on the ground of improper enforcement
of the writ of attachment.
(B) Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly
executed?
No, the writ of preliminary attachment
was not properly executed.
Pursuant to the Rules on Civil Procedure, no
levy on attachment shall be enforced unless it is
preceded or contemporaneous ly accompanied by
service of summons together with a copy of the
complaint.
Here, the writ of preliminary attachment
was served and levied prior to the service of
summons with a copy of the complaint. Hence, the
writ was improperly executed.
X.
Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong
over a commercial building where the former conducted
his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated,
among others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four
(4)-year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On
January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was
appointed administrator of the estate of Prince Chong, but
the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of
January to June 2013 despite King Kongs written
demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of
contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as
of June 30, 2013. (4%)
(A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction since the
amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
No, Kin Il Chong cannot move to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Settled is the rule in Civil Procedure that
an action for specific performance and damages is
incapable of pecuniary estimation that falls under
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Here,
the
action
is
for
specific
performance and damages which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Thus, the complaint falls
squarely within the jurisdiction of the RTC,
rendering the motion to dismiss without merit.
(B) If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince
Chong, and King Kong also filed the complaint for sum of
money during that time, will the action be dismissible
upon Prince Chongs death during the pendency of the
case?

Yes, the complaint will be dismissible if it


is for sum of money only in the amount of
P300,000.
The Supreme Court has held several times
that the totality of the amount claimed is
determinative of what court has jurisdiction; where
the total amount of the claim is only P300,000, the
jurisdiction is with the MTC.
Hence, the motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction will be untenable
insofar as the total amount of the claim is
P300,000.
XI.
A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for
unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious
gun for hire. When the police served the warrant, they also
sought the assistance of barangay tanods who were
assigned to look at other portions of the premises around
the house. In a nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the
house of Ass-asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of
marijuana that was wrapped in newsprint. He took it and
this was later used by the authorities to charge Ass-asin
with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-asin objected to
the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was
illegally seized. Is the objection of Assasin valid? (4%)
Yes, the objection of Ass-asin is valid.
It is basic hornbook doctrine in Criminal
Procedure that articles that are seized illegally are
inadmissible
in
evidence,
based
on
the
constitutional guideline that articles to be seized
should be particularly described in the search
warrant.
Here, the kilo of marijuana seized was
not particularly described in the search warrant.
Therefore, the seized kilo of marijuana is
inadmissible in evidence, and the objection is valid.
XII.
Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment agency
where they both applied for overseas employment. They
exchanged pleasantries, including details of their personal
circumstances. Fortunately, Mary Jane was deployed to
work as front desk receptionist at a hotel in Abu Dhabi
where she met Sultan Ahmed who proposed marriage, to
which she readily accepted. Unfortunately for Shiela May,
she was not deployed to work abroad, and this made her
envious of Mary Jane.
Mary Jane returned to the Philippines to prepare for her
wedding. She secured from the National Statistics Office
(NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage. It turned out from the
NSO records that Mary Jane had previously contracted
marriage with John Starr, a British citizen, which she never

did. The purported marriage between Mary Jane and John


Starr contained all the required pertinent details on Mary
Jane. Mary Jane later on learned that Shiela May is the
best friend of John Starr.
As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her
predicament. What legal remedy will you avail to enable
Mary Jane to contract marriage with Sultan Ahmed? (4%)
I will advise Mary Jane to avail of Rule
108 to cancel the fake certificate of marriage.
Under the Rules of Special Proceedings,
any interested party may file for the cancellation of
entry of marriage before the RTC in the province
where the corresponding civil registry is located.
The Supreme Court has held that there is no need
to file a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage since there was no marriage to speak of
in the first place.
Hence, Mary Jane should file a petition for
the cancellation of entry of marriage before the
RTC of the province where the local civil registry is
located.
XIII.
A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from
packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door
forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at the
international airport. In one of the routinary inspections of
packages waiting to be sent to the United States of
America (USA), the dog sat beside one of the packages, a
signal that the package contained dangerous drugs.
Thereafter, the guards opened the package and found two
(2) kilograms of cocaine. The owner of the package was
arrested and charges were filed against him. During the
trial, the prosecution, through the trainer who was present
during the incident and an expert in this kind of field,
testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff packages
to determine if the contents were dangerous drugs and
the sniffing technique of these highly trained dogs was
accepted worldwide and had been successful in dangerous
drugs operations. The prosecution moved to admit this
evidence to justify the opening of the package. The
accused objected on the grounds that: (i) the guards had
no personal knowledge of the contents of the package
before it was opened; (ii) the testimony of the trainer of
the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the accused could not crossexamine the dog. Decide. (4%)
The seized dangerous drugs are
admissible in evidence against the owner of the
package.
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that
articles seized during an airport search is an
exception to the rule on illegal searches and
therefore admissible in evidence.

Here, the dangerous drugs were seized in


an airport search setting. Ergo, such articles are
admissible in evidence against the owner of the
package where the articles were seized.
XIV.
When a Municipal Trial Court (MTC), pursuant to its
delegated jurisdiction, renders an adverse judgment in an
application for land registration, the aggrieved partys
remedy is: (1%)

alleged that he had no interest over the land in question,


except as lessee of Z. Plaintiff subsequently filed an
affidavit of Z, the lessor of defendant, stating that Z had
sold to plaintiff all his rights and interests in the property
as shown by a deed of transfer attached to the affidavit.
Thus, plaintiff may ask the court to render: (1%)
(A) summary judgment
(B) judgment on the pleadings
(C) partial judgment

(A) ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court


(D) judgment by default
(B) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
A
(C) ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals
XVII.
(D) petition for review to the Court of Appeals
C
XV.
The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation, found probable cause to charge
Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a private
individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA)
No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as
amended). Before the information could be filed with the
Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an ambush.
This, notwithstanding, an information was filed against
Gov. Matigas and Carpintero.
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, filed a
Motion to Quash the Information, on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that with the
death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public officer charged in
the information. Is the motion to quash legally tenable?
(4%)
No, the motion to quash is not legally
tenable.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private
individual who conspired with a public official in
committing any of the prohibited acts under RA
3019.
Hence, the Sandiganbayan can prosecute
Carpintero for the criminal acts he committed
under RA 3019 notwithstanding the death of his coconspirator public official, rendering the motion to
quash without merit.
XVI.
Plaintiff filed a complaint denominated as accion
publiciana, against defendant. In his answer, defendant

A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of


plunder, a non-bailable offense, where the court had
already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being
arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant
and to Fix Bail, arguing that the allegations in the
information did not charge the crime of plunder but a
crime of malversation, a bailable offense. The court denied
the motion on the ground that it had not yet acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the
accused should be under the custody of the court since
the crime charged was nonbailable The accuseds lawyer
counter-argued that the court can rule on the motion even
if the accused was at-large because it had jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case. According to said lawyer,
there was no need for the accused to be under the
custody of the court because what was filed was a Motion
to Quash Arrest and to Fix Bail, not a Petition for Bail.
(A) If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on
the motion? (3%)
I will deny the motion to quash and fix
bail.
The Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear
that a motion to quash can be availed of only when
a ground or grounds set therein are available as
when the facts charged do not constitute an
offense. Moreover, an application for bail sets in
only when the accused has already acquired
custody of the accused.
Here, the information charges an offense
which is the nonbailable crime of plunder. Besides,
the warrant of arrest has yet to be filed, meaning
that A is not yet under the custody of the court.
Therefore, the motion to quash and fix bail has no
basis hence should be denied.
(B) If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial
remedy should the accused undertake? (2%)

If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion,


the accused should proceed to trial.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
order denying a motion to quash is an interlocutory
order which is neither appealable nor subject to a
petition for certiorari.
Therefore, the remedy of the accused is to
proceed to trial, await its judgment, then appeal an
unfavorable judgment.

exceeding six years, and hence not entitled to bail


pending appeal.

XIX.
A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the
hearsay rule. It, however, does not cover: (1%)
(A) admission by a conspirator
(B) admission by a privy

XVIII.

(C) judicial admission

A was charged with murder in the lower court. His Petition


for Bail was denied after a summary hearing on the
ground that the prosecution had established a strong
evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was filed
from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the
reception of the evidence of the accused, the accused
reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the
witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown that
no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the
killing. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it
had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is strong;
(ii) the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on
the evidence presented by the prosecution; and (iii) no
Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the
Petition for Bail. (6%)
(A) If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the
incident?
I will deny the petition for bail.
Basic is the hornbook doctrine that bail is
not a matter of right nor discretion when the
offense charged is punishable by reclusion
perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong.
Here, the offense charged is non-bailable,
and the prosecution has established a strong
evidence of As guilt. Thus, A is not entitled to bail.
(B) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of
homicide and the accused filed a Notice of Appeal, is he
entitled to bail?
No, A is not entitled to bail even pending
appeal.
The standing rule is that if the penalty
imposed by the trial court is imprisonment
exceeding six years, the application for bail
pending appeal shall be denied.

which

Here, the imposable penalty for homicide to


A has been convicted is imprisonment

(D) adoptive admission


C
XX.
Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with Debi
Wallis on the ground of psychological incapacity of the
latter. Before filing the petition, Tom Wallis had told Debi
Wallis that he wanted the annulment of their marriage
because he was already fed up with her irrational and
eccentric behaviour. However, in the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage, the correct residential
address of Debi Wallis was deliberately not alleged and
instead, the residential address of their married son was
stated. Summons was served by substituted service at the
address stated in the petition. For failure to file an answer,
Debi Wallis was declared in default and Tom Wallis
presented evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered judgment
declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3) years
after the RTC judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got hold
of a copy thereof and wanted to have the RTC judgment
reversed and set aside. If you are the lawyer of Debi
Wallis, what judicial remedy or remedies will you take?
Discuss and specify the ground or grounds for said remedy
or remedies. (5%)
I will file for annulment of judgment on the
ground of extrinsic fraud.
Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, a petition for annulment of judgment on
the ground of extrinsic fraud may be filed with the
Court of Appeals within four years from the
discovery of the extrinsic fraud, when the other
remedies are no longer available available.
Here, the other remedies are no longer
available insofar as three years had lapsed since
the promulgation of the judgment, leaving Debi
with annulment of judgment as the remaining
available remedy. Hence, the filing of a petition for

annulment of judgment on the ground of extrinsic


fraud shall be properly taken.

XXI.
Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al Pakino,
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for
specific performance against Robert White. Instead of
filing an answer to the complaint, Robert White filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
the appropriate board resolution from the Board of
Directors of Goodfeather Corporation to show the
authority of Al Pakino to represent the corporation and file
the complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion to
dismiss and, accordingly, it ordered the dismissal of the
complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion for reconsideration
which the RTC denied. As nothing more could be done by
Al Pakino before the RTC, he filed an appeal before the
Court of Appeals (CA). Robert White moved for dismissal
of the appeal on the ground that the same involved purely
a question of law and should have been filed with the
Supreme Court (SC). However, Al Pakino claimed that the
appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law because
there must be a factual determination if, indeed, Al Pakino
was duly authorized by Goodfeather Corporation to file the
complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain. (4%)
Al Parkinos position is correct.
Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure,
appeals involving questions of law and of fact shall
be filed with the Court of Appeals.
The appeal in this case involves
determination of the authority of Al Parkino to file a
complaint which is a question of fact. Hence, the
appeal should properly be with the Court of
Appeals.
XXII.
Which of the following decisions may be appealed directly
to the Supreme Court (SC)? (Assume that the issues to be
raised on appeal involve purely questions of law) (1%)
(A) Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
(B) Decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction
(C) Decision of the Civil Service Commission
(D) Decision of the Office of the President
B
XXIII.

Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a


complaint against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC, after
due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the
complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages to
Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before the
Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC decision.
Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Humptys motion for
execution pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTCs order
granting execution pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty filed with
the CA another case, this time a special civil action for
certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a violation of
the rule against forum shopping considering that two (2)
actions emanating from the same case with the RTC were
filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? Explain. (4%)
No, there is no violation of the rule
against forum shopping.
The settled rule in Civil Procedure is that
forum shopping applies only when what is filed are
complaints or initiatory pleadings.
Here, the appeal and petition for
certiorari are neither complaints nor initiatory
pleadings. Thus, the proscription against forum
shopping does not apply.
XXIV.
Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Solomon
contracted a second marriage with Hope. When Faith
found out about the second marriage of Solomon and
Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011.
Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the
case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing.
Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of
prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in
the criminal case should be suspended because if his first
marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, it will
have the effect of exculpating him from the crime of
bigamy. Decide. (4%)
The motion to suspend the proceeding in
the case for bigamy should be denied.
The
established
rule
in
Criminal
Procedure is that prejudicial question exists when a
civil action has been filed prior to a criminal action,
and the resolution of the civil action is
determinative of whether the criminal action should
proceed. Moreover, the crime of bigamy is
committed by the mere contracting of a second
marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage
with a different spouse notwithstanding the
voidness of the previous of subsequent marriage.
Here, the civil action for the declaration
of nullity of marriage was filed not prior but

subsequent to the criminal case for bigamy.


Importantly, Solomon had contracted a second
marriage during the subsistence of his first
marriage with another spouse. Hence, there exists
no prejudicial question that merits the suspension
of the criminal prosecution for bigamy.

XXV.
Mr. Boaz filed an action for ejectment against Mr. Jachin
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Mr. Jachin
actively participated in every stage of the proceedings
knowing fully well that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over
the action. In his mind, Mr. Jachin was thinking that if the
MeTC rendered judgment against him, he could always
raise the issue on the jurisdiction of the MeTC. After trial,
the MeTC rendered judgment against Mr. Jachin. What is
the remedy of Mr. Jachin? (1%)
(A) File an appeal
(B) File an action for nullification of judgment
(C) File a motion for reconsideration
(D) File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
B
XXVI.
Parole evidence is an: (1%)
(A) agreement not included in the document
(B) oral agreement not included in the document
(C) agreement included in the document
(D) oral agreement included in the document
A

Mr. Avenger can re-file the case pursuant to


Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
(B) If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss, what
will be her remedy/remedies?
Applying Rule 16, Ms. Bright can file an
answer within the balance of the period but not
less than 5 days, or file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 predicated on a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction.
(C) If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss and,
further proceedings, including trial on the merits, are
conducted until the RTC renders a decision in favor of Mr.
Avenger, what will be the remedy/remedies of Ms. Bright?
Ms. Bright can file for a motion for
reconsideration and in case of the denial thereof to
file an appeal from te judgment or final order,
likewise pursuant to Rule 16.
XXVIII.
A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler.
Later on in life, A filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court, as he wanted to reassume the surname of his
natural parents because the surname of his adoptive
parents sounded offensive and was seriously affecting his
business and social life. The adoptive parents gave their
consent to the petition for change of name. May A file a
petition for change of name? If the RTC grants the petition
for change of name, what, if any, will be the effect on the
respective relations of A with his adoptive parents and
with his natural parents? Discuss. (4%)
Yes, A may file a petition for change of
name.
Under the Rules of Summary Proceedings,
a petition for change of name (surname) may be
filed with the RTC on the grounds that the name is
ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce, and the change is a legal
consequence of adoption.

XXVII.
Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of sale
and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. Mr.
Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
State and discuss the appropriate remedy/remedies under
each of the following situations: (6%)
(A) If the RTC grants Ms. Brights motion to dismiss and
dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
action, what will be the remedy/remedies of Mr. Avenger?

Hence, A may file a petition for change of


name insofar as the grounds are available to him.
XXIX.
Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land
located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet.
However, when she visited the property after she took a
long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her
childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house
on her property. Both Estrella and John were residents of
the same barangay.

To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint for


ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), alleging
that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her
certificate of title and tax declaration which showed the
assessed value of the property as P21,000.00. On the
other hand, John refuted Estrellas claim of ownership and
submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between
him and Estrella. After the filing of Johns answer, the MTC
observed that the real issue was one of ownership and not
of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a
full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was originally
filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on the assessed
value of the property, it was the court of proper
jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment
declaring John as the owner of the land and, hence,
entitled to the possession thereof. (4%)
(A) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not?
No, the MTC was not correct in
dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Under the Rules on Ejectment, the action
for ejectment is within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the MTC irrespective of total amount
of the claims.

Hence, it was erroneous for the MTC to


dismiss the complaint for ejectment as it falls
properly within its jurisdiction.
(B) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the
assessed value of the property, the case was within its
original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a fullblown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed
with it? Why or why not?
No, the RTC ruling based on the assessed
value is not correct.
The Supreme Court in applying the Rules
has held that what determines jurisdiction of the
court as conferred by law is the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the
complaint. The averments therein and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be
consulted.
Here, the jurisdiction over ejectment
cases is conferred by law exclusively and originally
upon the MTC. Necessarily, the nature of the action
is alleged by the facts in the complaint herein.
Hence, the RTC should have remanded the case to
the MTC since it is the latter that has jurisdiction
over the case.